Far from being an independent and unbiased collection of scientists and engineers, this magazine has some very suspicious ties and underwent radical changes prior to the publication of its 911 debunking article. The following is an excerpt from a new book by Former CIA officer David Ray Griffin entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

In the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM’s personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the US Information Agency.

Bollyn, describing this Black-orchestrated change at Popular Mechanics as "a brutal take-over," wrote: "In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazine’s former editor-in-chief, was replaced by James B. Meigs. In October, a new creative director replaced PM’s 21-year veteran who was given 90 minutes to clear out of his office." In each of the following six months, Bollyn further reporter, three or four more people were similarly dismissed. Accordingly, PM’s long tradition of expertise is therefore misleading.

Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for PM's 911 Debunking article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. Bollyn then wrote an essay entitled "9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propoganda for PM." The Hearst Corporation, Bollyn charged, had hired young Chertoff to work on an article supporting the very interpretation of 9/11 that had led to the creation of the department now headed by his older cousin.

As Bollyn learned, this family relationship seemed to be something that neither Benjamin Chertoff nor PM wanted to advertise. When young Chertoff was asked by Bollyn if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he replied "I don’t know," then said that all further questions should be put to PM’s publicist. Bollyn then called Benjamin Chertoff’s mother. When asked whether her son was related to the new secretary of Homeland Security, she reportedly replied "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

From editor-in-chief Meigs’ "Afterword" to the book, however, a reader would assume there was some doubt about this. … After mentioning the conversation between Bollyn and Benjamin Chertoff’s mother, Meigs himself says: "it’s possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related."

Meigs expression of doubt is amazing. He is claiming that he and his crack staff were, in a few months, able to discover all the central truths about 9/11 – why the planes were not intercepted, why the World Trade Center Buildings came down, what really hit the Pentagon, and what really happened to UA Flight 93 – and yet they were not able to find out for sure whether a member of their own team was related to the director of Homeland Security!

Let’s summarize.

You’ve got a hostile take-over at Popular Mechanics headed by a woman whose husband worked for the CIA and Department of Defence. Following this take-over, the 25-year-old cousin of the director of Homeland Security serves as the "senior researcher" for an article that defends every last aspect of the government’s fairy tale about 9/11. They claim to be an extremely thorough and fact-driven publication, yet they can’t even find out if these guys are related?!?

Does this really sound like independent investigative journalism to you? Does this really sound like an article researched without bias or prejudice? Better yet, can you even fathom such a project resulting in even one bit of information that goes against the government’s story?

By the way, what I posted above is one half of one page of a 322-page book with 62 pages of footnotes, all of which rip to shreds the countless "debunking" articles written by PM, The New York Times, NIST, Vanity Fair, Time Magazine and many others.

I have David Griffins book, it is excellent and it is un-debunkable. Griffin nailed it beautifully and he is to be commended. Those of you who still believe the government’s 911 fairy tale seriously need to wake up.

I watched all the videos thanks for drawing my attention to the fact. I had no idea there was a massive amount of evidence to prove that this attack was planned and executed by people in power or people that really run things behind the seen's.

The glaring question that stands out to me is how many people were and are in the know about what really happened. It must be hundreds if not thousands. The planning alone is staggering let alone the execution. Just think what you have to plan for and control running up to actual event. Try and work it out your self.

Ok YOU made the decision to create this false flag event. Who would you need to get on your side to help make it happen. What type of people would they need to get involved and so on down the line. The owners of the buildings would certainly have to be on board (pull these first and start ripping out a few finger nails). You would need a brilliant project manager on your side. That must indicate military involvement at many levels. Once you set up your time line you still have to get demolition experts involved most likely civilian experts as they would have the most experience with bringing down buildings. So where do you find people like that who would get involved? Most likely they would be from Israel or Russian.

I'm flabbergasted just thinking about what would be involved. Thanks a lot you have triggered my analytical obsessional bent and set me on a course of months of question and answers.

When people are queuing up to tell me I'm wrong, that's when I know I'm right. The loudest of objection can be defeated by the simpleness of truth.

All posts and media uploads are expressed opinions of the contributing members and
are not representative of or endorsed by the owners or employees of Disclose.tv.

This site may contain copyrighted material. Members may make such material available
in an effort to advance the awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights,
economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We
believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law.